Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Review Commission - MINUTES - 02/27/2025 (2)Eric Richards, Chair Council Chambers Shaun Moscrip, Vice Chair 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins Gabe Dunbar Bob Poncelow Casey Roberts Staff Liaison: Jeffrey Schneider Marcus Coldiron Ronnie Zimmerman Chief Building Official Meeting Minutes February 27, 2025 A regular meeting of the Building Review Commission was held on Thursday, February 27, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in person at 300 Laporte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. •CALL TO ORDER Chair Richards called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. •ROLL CALL PRESENT: Dunbar, Moscrip, Poncelow, Richards, Schneider, and Zimmerman ABSENT: Roberts STAFF: Coldiron, Manno, Howell, and Shehan •PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. •DISCUSSION AGENDA 1.MINUTES OF JANUARY 30, 2025 The purpose of this item is to consider approval of the minutes from the January 30, 2025 regular meeting of the Building Review Commission. Commissioner Poncelow moved to approve the minutes of the January 30, 2025 meeting as written. Commissioner Zimmerman seconded. The motion passed 6-0. Building Review Commission 2. COLE FEYEN, VECTOR CONSTRUCTION – REQUEST FOR CLASS B LICENSE AND SUPERVISOR’S CERTIFICATE WITHOUT REQUIRED EXAM OR MINIMUM EXPERIENCE DESCRIPTION: B license and supervisor’s certificate without submitting proof that he satisfies the minimum experience qualifications required for a higher classification than Class D-1. STAFF: Neighborhood Services Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official Colin Bowman introduced himself as an owner of Vector Construction and representative for Cole Feyen. Chair Richards outlined the hearing process. Staff Presentation Shar Manno, Manager, Customer Support, Community Development and Neighborhood Services, outlined Cole Feyen’s request for a Class B license and supervisor’s certificate without a required exam or minimum experience qualifications. She discussed the Vector Construction project for which a permit was sought, and noted staff determined the minimum license and supervisor’s certificate classification needed for the project would be a Class C-2; however, after reviewing Mr. Feyen’s application packet, the licensing team determined that the highest license classification for which Mr. Feyen qualifies is a Class D-1 based on the project verifications submitted. Manno discussed what types of construction is allowed under each license type. Manno stated staff is recommending denial of the request given the project verifications and testing certificate submitted do not demonstrate the applicant is qualified to perform work authorized under a license classification above the D-1 level. Manno outlined the Code requirements related to the granting of a variance. Applicant Presentation Mr. Bowman stated that as it has been determined that a Class B license is not needed for the project, they have changed their request to be for a Class C-2 license specific to this project. He stated he believes Mr. Feyen’s application packet is sufficient for that license and discussed the developer’s intent to build the project under the IRC requirements. Additionally, Mr. Bowman noted his company is young and local and he stated it is difficult for such a company to show examples of identical work to the project in another community as a project verification. Staff Response Manno stated the project verifications only apply to the individual who will be supervising a particular project. Marcus Coldiron, Chief Building Official, stated the non-property line townhomes are similar to property line townhomes; however, there are many differences between property line townhomes and a multi-family building, including differences in fire suppression systems, and accessibility requirements. He noted this project likely falls on the low end of IBC projects and is probably most similar to IRC construction; however, granting a full C-2 license would open the door for the contractor to do something very different from this project that could include components he would not be familiar with based on the project verifications provided. Applicant Response Mr. Bowman concurred this project falls under the low end of IBC projects and reiterated the developer has specifically left the design to be very close to the IRC requirements. Additionally, he noted a licensed contractor would be needed to install the fire suppression system and stated only one of the 25 units is ADA accessible and is essentially acting as a single-family residence. Commission Questions/Discussion Commissioner Dunbar noted the project verification forms were signed by an individual internal to the company and asked if staff’s opinion of the work would change if they were signed by an external party. Manno replied the Code states the three projects must be from three different individuals and cannot be internal to the applicant’s current company. Commissioner Dunbar asked Mr. Bowman for his opinion on the verifications. Mr. Bowman replied the company got its start by developing for sale townhomes in the residential space. Additionally, he stated the City’s application does not want IBC experience that is not directly residentially related to this project, which is why the verifications were all developed by Vector. He noted they do have commercial experience. Manno asked if there are other individuals who could vet Mr. Feyen’s experience as an on-site supervisor. Mr. Bowman replied they would be happy to submit information from inspectors in other cities or sub-contractors on other projects. Chair Richards asked if the commercial projects would be relevant to the C-2 license. Manno replied the C-2 license classification is for multi-family complexes, including any buildings that are not residential. She noted staff is looking specifically at Mr. Feyen’s experience, not at Vector as a whole. Additionally, she stated the project would require a C-2 license, and Mr. Feyen does have the testing level for a C-2 to be issued; however, the project verifications submitted only justify a D-1 license. Chair Richards asked Mr. Bowman if Mr. Feyen has other project supervisor experience that would fall under a Class C-2 license. Mr. Bowman replied in the affirmative and noted Fort Collins is the first city he has dealt with that has the more nuanced license classifications. He noted Mr. Feyen was the supervisor on a Starbucks building construction and he could provide verification of that. Chair Richards noted the City needs three separate projects and asked if there are others that could be provided that were not owned by Vector. Mr. Bowman replied Mr. Feyen has had occupancy certificates issued on other IBC commercial projects. Commissioner Moscrip asked if the project has applied for a building permit. Manno replied in the affirmative. Commissioner Moscrip asked if the project will receive a permit given the design differences that place it under the IRC. Coldiron replied the project has to be designed to the IBC, but noted the interior portion of multi-family requirements in the IBC follow closely with the IRC. Commissioner Poncelow asked what type of license Mr. Feyen would qualify for, given the discussion about the commercial projects. Coldiron replied it would be a C-1(DR). Commissioner Dunbar stated this is a unique situation and suggested possibly resubmitting the application requesting a C-2 license and providing verification forms signed by someone external to Vector. Chair Richards stated it appears there is a path forward for Mr. Feyen and Vector Construction, though the Commission may not be able to weigh in on that. He asked if the submitted project verifications are not sufficient given the lot line issue. Manno replied in the affirmative. Mr. Bowman expressed concern the City’s application process and required project verifications would never allow for Mr. Feyen to meet the C-2 license requirements. Commissioner Zimmerman stated the Commission has an option to accept the project verifications that were submitted and grant a one-time project variance, grant a C-2 license, or deny the request and require that Vector bring on a different staff member to head the project. Commissioner Dunbar expressed support for a one-time project variance stating Mr. Feyen’s project experience is closely adjacent to this project. He stated he would also like to see project verifications from parties outside the company. Commissioner Moscrip requested an explanation of the difference between the property line types. Coldiron replied property line townhomes are essentially an attached single-family product and a single-family product is designed, built, and inspected directly out of the IRC, which in most ways is less restrictive than the IBC. He stated zero lot line properties must have independent fire rated assemblies between the single-family attached units, as well as a fire suppression system. Commissioner Dunbar made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Poncelow, that the Building Review Commission grant the requested variances to City Code Sections 15-158 and 15-159 to allow the information presented at this hearing and contained in Mr. Feyen’s January 17, 2025 contractor licensing application packet to satisfy the minimum experience qualifications and written examination requirements for a Class C-2 license and supervisor’s certificate for this project only, the Ellie at Old Town North. The Commission finds that Granting this variance will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the intent and purposes of Chapter 15, Article V; and Mr. Feyen has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that they possess other qualifications not specifically listed in City Code Chapter 15, Article V, which the Commission has determined qualify them to perform in a competent manner, this project only, any construction authorized under a Class C-2 license and supervisor’s certificate provided that the required project verification forms are provided by the applicant that meet City requirements. The motion passed 6-0. Coldiron noted the project contains two buildings, which are designed similarly, and stated it is important to clarify whether the approval is for both buildings, which would be under two separate building permits. Mr. Bowman stated the Ellie project is for a 12-plex and a 13-plex building and both permits have been submitted. Commissioners concurred the motion applies to both buildings and Commissioner Poncelow noted the project verifications that need to be submitted should be more commercial in nature and signed by external parties. 3. KIRT ECKER, ECKER NETTING, INC. DBA JUDGE NETTING MOUNTAIN WEST – REQUEST FOR A NEW SUPERVISOR’S CERTIFICATE WITHOUT REQUIRED EXAM DESCRIPTION: requesting a new Class C1(DR) supervisor’s certificate to be issued without a passing International Code Council (ICC) testing certificate of the code year required for a new supervisor’s certificate. STAFF: Neighborhood Services Kirt Ecker introduced himself. Chair Richards outlined the hearing process. Staff Presentation Shar Manno, Manager, Customer Support, Community Development and Neighborhood Services, outline the request for a new supervisor’s certificate without a required exam. She stated Mr. Ecker’s company, Judge Netting Mountain West, offers golf course netting installation and noted Mr. Ecker’s application for the Class C1(DR) license and supervisor’s certificate was deemed incomplete as it did not include three complete project verifications or a certificate demonstrating a passing score on applicable ICC testing. Alternatively, the applicant may obtain a variance to the testing requirement. Manno noted the Class C1(DR) license is required for the types of projects Mr. Ecker would like to complete due to the pole height, square footage, and/or structural nature of the projects. She explained that Mr. Ecker is seeking a variance to allow him to be issued a supervisor’s certificate without satisfying the examination requirement due to the fact that the applicable testing covers more than what the company does and needs as it does not build full structures. She stated staff is aware the testing covers more than what Judge Netting Mountain West does; however, there are numerous aspects of the testing that are relevant. Manno stated the staff recommendation is approval of the request with the following conditions: licensing and supervisor’s certificate will be limited to the installation of large-scale netting systems only, and Mr. Ecker must satisfy all other application packet requirements under City Code before a license and supervisor’s certificate can be issued, including the submission of three satisfactory project verifications. She outlined the Commission’s options. Applicant Presentation Mr. Ecker stated his company has substantial experience working for the City of Fort Collins dating back to the early 2000’s, noting that many of the local golf course netting projects were completed by Judge Netting. Additionally, he stated his company completed netting for the Centennial Top Golf and the backstop system at Coors Field, among other projects. Mr. Ecker stated he is currently licensed in ten states to complete this work and stated he passed the NASCLA national contractor exam in 2023, which is accepted in 18 states. He also noted that his company has zero OSHA reportable events and all field personnel have proper and current certifications. Staff Response None. Applicant Response None. Commission Questions/Discussion Commissioner Schneider stated Mr. Ecker is more than qualified to do the work described and questioned why this has not been an issue in the past given his work for the City. Commissioner Dunbar stated there have been similar requests before the Commission in the past and asked if specialty licenses are being considered. Manno replied Chief Building Official Coldiron is currently reviewing a Code update that includes a license classification for niche companies. Commissioner Poncelow made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schneider, that the Building Review Commission grant the requested variance to waive the written examination requirement under City Code Section 15-157(c) with respect to Mr. Ecker’s application for a supervisor’s certificate. This variance is limited to allowing the issuance of a Class C1(DR) license and supervisor’s certificate solely for the installation of large-scale netting systems that may be built under such license. The Commission finds that granting this variance will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the intent and purposes of Chapter 15, Article V; and Mr. Ecker has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that they possess other qualifications not specifically listed in City Code Chapter 15, Article V, which the Commission has determined qualify them to perform in a competent manner the installation of large-scale netting systems authorized under a Class C1(DR) license and supervisor certificate. The motion passed 6-0. •OTHER BUSINESS None. •ADJOURNMENT Chair Richards adjourned the meeting at 10:24 a.m. Minutes prepared by TriPoint Data and respectfully submitted by Melissa Matsunaka.